UK smugness on aid to regions is too easy

Why is there a misconception in the UK that the EU has done it no good?

European Voice

6/17/09, 9:14 PM CET

Updated 4/12/14, 6:02 PM CET

I note a certain smugness towards the German position on the future of regional development policy vis à vis the UK position in your article “Battling over EU billions” (28 May–3 June).

It is natural for Germany to want to see some of its EU contribution repatriated and to see its money put to good use – to help the poorest but also to spread good practice around the EU.

For the UK, the situation is easier, since two-thirds of its contribution is rebated. It is easy to be magnanimous with others’ money.

Regional policy was introduced to benefit the UK when it joined the EU and, in general, it did a good job of cushioning the UK’s conversion away from heavy industry. So why is there a massive misconception in the UK that the EU has done it no good?

Firstly, EU money has very often been spent without advertising it as EU money.

Secondly, the English seem to think the country’s growth since the early 1980s was all down to Margaret Thatcher. But all EU countries enjoyed a boom of sorts for about ten years after accession. If the UK’s growth is down to anyone, it is down to Ted Heath, who took it into the EU.

Thirdly, people overlook the ‘single-market effect’: outside companies wishing to reside in the single-market area frequently prefer a location where English is spoken.

Fourthly, UK politicians’ excessive use of spin has robbed the EU of credit and, worse, has often unfairly blamed it for problems.

Spin has created much Euroscepticism. Worse, it has infected the rest of Europe.

Related stories on these topics:

Stephen Gash

The EU has been steadfastly useless to England, a country whose existence the EU does not even recognise (except for levying fines).

Following floods in Europe in 2002, the EU Solidarity Fund was set up to fund reparations caused by natural disasters. The Czech Republic received 129 million Euros although it hadn’t yet joined the EU. Carlisle, Yorkshire and Boscastle were all flooded after then, but England received no Solidarity Fund money. True this wass because of useless English Politicians too busy fiddling their expenses to care about their constituents. The latest floods in Hull, Worcestershire and elsewhere did eventually extract Solidarity Fund money (which promptly went into the UK excequer, thus Barnett Formula-ing its way to Scotland).

When Greece was devastated by fires, Barroso went there and promised 405 million Euros IN ADDITION to Solidarity Fund money. This sum almost equalled the fine levied against England for not paying single farm payments on time. At no time did Barroso visit England to see the flood damage and certainly offered no extra money.

England is regularly fined by the EU, an organisation which has failed to audit itself for 13 years. In 2008 it was for ‘mishandling’ regional funding. EU-Regions are persistently shown in polls to be the most unpopular option for governance within England, but we are fined for having them.

England was once again fined this year, for failing landfill targets. Fining is an annual event that ensures England is denied EU funding.

Perhaps this site could publish which EU countries have been fined in the past 5 years, or since UK devolution, and more importantly which countries actually pay fines. France’s record isn’t that great for fine-payment, but England’s is excellent. I would be interested to see how much Italy has paid for phoney olive groves etc.

Posted on 6/18/09 | 6:50 AM CEST

Ian Campbell

Could the UK not have spent its own money equally well? And have saved itself one third?
Much of the hostility towards the EU in the UK is not just about the cost of membership but also about the relentless drive towards harmonisation and regionalisation/abolition of nation states.
Many Brits would be quite happy to belong to a club of nations. Some would even accept a United States of Europe if the states retained the degree of local autonomy enjoyed by the states in the USA. What almost all Brits are opposed to is a United State of Europe.